The Hidden Threat of Communism in America

[Senter]

Let's go to the source:



Is there any doubt that today's "left", and sadly much of the "right", is headed down this road?

Yes, there is great doubt. No Marxist movement has happened in secret because Marxist movements depend on the support of the people. That is the way they differ from movements of the political right. So the question is, do you see people in your state and community working with and joining an organization that calls itself "Marxist" or "communist" or "socialist"? No. Such organizations are few and small, and people aren't bothering with them.

Secondly, the question is not whether we see the abolition of land ownership happening, which we don't, or whether we see a heavy progressive income tax, which we don't as the top bracket has consistently come down since about 1970, or whether we see abolition of rights of inheritance, confiscation of immigrants' possessions, centralization of credit and communications in the hands of the state, or any of your other "points". The question is whether we see some monolithic national organization advocating a people's revolution. We don't.

In fact, your post is so absurd that I recognize that it could be facetiousness, sarcasm, or an intended joke.

 

[dblack]

Is there any doubt that today's "left", and sadly much of the "right", is headed down this road?

Yes, there is great doubt. No Marxist movement has happened in secret because Marxist movements depend on the support of the people.

Yep. Ok. So what?

That is the way they differ from movements of the political right.

Sure, sure. Relevance?

So the question is, do you see people in your state and community working with and joining an organization that calls itself "Marxist" or "communist" or "socialist"? No. Such organizations are few and small, and people aren't bothering with them.

That's not "the question". At least not the one I'm asking. What concerns me is that we're marching down the road, adopting the "inroads" that, according to Marx, will convert the US to socialism. We're adopting the key tenets of socialism without an honest public debate on whether we really want socialism or not.

In fact, your post is so absurd that I recognize that it could be facetiousness, sarcasm, or an intended joke.

My post is a quote from the Communist Manifesto. So, I agree, it's all absurd. But I see many leftists advocating for items on that list routinely. I suppose you'll deny it - but it's actually happening.

 

[Senter]

Yep. Ok. So what?

Sure, sure. Relevance?

That's not "the question". At least not the one I'm asking. What concerns me is that we're marching down the road, adopting the "inroads" that, according to Marx, will convert the US to socialism. We're adopting the key tenets of socialism without an honest public debate on whether we really want socialism or not.

My post is a quote from the Communist Manifesto. So, I agree, it's all absurd. But I see many leftists advocating for items on that list routinely. I suppose you'll deny it - but it's actually happening.

Wow. You're a case. The "so what" and the "relevance" is that I showed you're wrong. So delete your claim from your mind if you can't debate it.

"The question"? The question is why it seems that you're basically taking the position of "communists have said the word 'tax' and so has the government, or at least the Democrats in government, and therefore the Democrats are communist". The point is that contrary to your imagination, we are not "marching down the road, adopting the 'inroads' that, according to Marx, will convert the US to socialism."

You quoted from the Communist Manifesto and nothing you quoted has anything to do with our government, the left, or Democrats, so in your mind it proves that the government, the left, and Democrats are communists. duh. Like, you have nothing to do with any genocide of Jews, and that proves you're a "Jew hater". duh.

 

[dblack]

Wow. You're a case. The "so what" and the "relevance" is that I showed you're wrong. So delete your claim from your mind if you can't debate it.

What did you prove wrong?? You claimed Marxist meetings aren't held in secret and that's how they differ from right wing politics. OK, so what? I don't know whether that's true or not, but I don't care. I never made claims in regard to those statements, so how am I wrong exactly??? Which "claim" am I supposed to "delete"?

"The question"? The question is why it seems that you're basically taking the position of "communists have said the word 'tax' and so has the government, or at least the Democrats in government, and therefore the Democrats are communist".

No, I'm not taking that position. That's a strawman. Got anything else?

The point is that contrary to your imagination, we are not "marching down the road, adopting the 'inroads' that, according to Marx, will convert the US to socialism."

Really? Have you looked at the list? I could provide you examples, ad nauseum, if you like. But I'm not going to the trouble if you're just going to play rhetorical games and deny them.

 

[Senter]

No, I'm not taking that position. That's a strawman. Got anything else?


Really? Have you looked at the list? I could provide you examples, ad nauseum, if you like. But I'm not going to the trouble if you're just going to play rhetorical games and deny them.

Yes you certainly ARE taking that position. It's in your list! So you ask whether I've looked at the list, meaning you don't comprehend that my reference to taxes was a paraphrase of the stupidity of your damned "list" from the C.M.

Let me see if a plain, direct statement can sink in....
YOUR "LIST" DOES NOT APPLY TO REALITY IN THE USA.

Got it now?

 

[dblack]

Yes you certainly ARE taking that position.

Nope. You're just repeating a lie. My position was clearly expressed by the rhetorical question in the actual post: "Is there any doubt that today's "left", and sadly much of the "right", is headed down this road?".

You're trying twist that into something else:

"... you're basically taking the position of "communists have said the word 'tax' and so has the government, or at least the Democrats in government, and therefore the Democrats are communist."

And I'm not taking that position, at all. All I said was that we are headed down the inroads mapped out in the Communist Manifesto. Because we are - have been for nearly a century.

YOUR "LIST" DOES NOT APPLY TO REALITY IN THE USA.

Well, it's not my list. And many of the items on the list have been achieved, or are being pursued as goals in the US. True story™.

 

[HenryBHough]

I always check under my bed at night for lurking Trump commies.

Anything over 30-seconds constitutes cowering in fear.

 

[Senter]

Nope. You're just repeating a lie. My position was clearly expressed by the rhetorical question in the actual post: "Is there any doubt that today's "left", and sadly much of the "right", is headed down this road?".

You're trying twist that into something else:

"... you're basically taking the position of "communists have said the word 'tax' and so has the government, or at least the Democrats in government, and therefore the Democrats are communist."

And I'm not taking that position, at all. All I said was that we are headed down the inroads mapped out in the Communist Manifesto. Because we are - have been for nearly a century.



Well, it's not my list. And many of the items on the list have been achieved, or are being pursued as goals in the US. True story™.

How dense can anyone be. You listed 10 points from the C.M. in your post, #320. You said they prove the US is moving toward communism since you think all 10 points are being implemented in the USA. And I said none of them are being implemented. So your argument is nonsensical propaganda.

Now either you move on from here with something that matters, or you keep churning this same story over and over and over and over and over, in which case I'l stop replying.

Clear?

 

[Senter]

Really? Have you looked at the list? I could provide you examples, ad nauseum, if you like. But I'm not going to the trouble if you're just going to play rhetorical games and deny them.

Yes I examined each and every one of the ten points you posted, and not one of them is being, or has been, implemented in the US. And even if you can twist one into something in the US, it doesn't mean the US is going communist any more than the fact that Bernie Sanders claims to be a "democratic socialist" means he's a communist. The DPRK says in its name that it is "democratic". Do you believe them? Can you discern claims from facts?

 

[dblack]

How dense can anyone be. You listed 10 points from the C.M. in your post, #320. You said they prove the US is moving toward communism since you think all 10 points are being implemented in the USA. And I said none of them are being implemented. So your argument is nonsensical propaganda.

I didn't say all ten. But you said "none"? Seriously? Some of them have already been put into practice. Whatever. It seems like you're just being argumentative now, mincing words, strawmanning, dancing to high heaven.

The only question I have left for you is why? Why is it so important to deny that socialism is a threat?

 

[Batcat]

History won't tell you how socialism operates or what it is. But it takes sufficient intelligence to realize that there has never been a country in which the working class has been liberated from capitalist exploitation by owning and running the MoP.

Let’s look at the USSR and how it operated. There is no way in Hell that i would ever want to live in a socialist workers’ paradise like that was.

10 Bizarre Ways The Soviet Union Controlled Its People - Listverse

The Soviet Union kept tight control over their people. Behind the Iron Curtain, freedoms were rare, and the minds of the populace were kept tightly in

listverse.com

 

[Senter]

I didn't say all ten. But you said "none"? Seriously? Some of them have already been put into practice. Whatever. It seems like you're just being argumentative now, mincing words, strawmanning, dancing to high heaven.

The only question I have left for you is why? Why is it so important to deny that socialism is a threat?

BECAUSE IT'S NOT! You made a claim that the US is going "communist" and gave "reasons" for saying that, but you haven't tried to back up even one of them. I said none have been implemented. You said "Is there any doubt that today's "left", and sadly much of the "right", is headed down this road?" If you believe that, why can't you prove even one of your 10 items from the C.M. is being implemented?

 

[Senter]

Let’s look at the USSR and how it operated. There is no way in Hell that i would ever want to live in a socialist workers’ paradise like that was.

10 Bizarre Ways The Soviet Union Controlled Its People - Listverse

The Soviet Union kept tight control over their people. Behind the Iron Curtain, freedoms were rare, and the minds of the populace were kept tightly in

listverse.com

There isn't even one mention of "workers" in your link, yet you think it tells how socialism would operate. You don't even know that Lenin said socialism was a bridge too far and that Russia would do better with state capitalism for a time, and then another revolution later to transition from state capitalism to socialism. IOW you whole post is bullshit after bullshit.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Yes, there is great doubt. No Marxist movement has happened in secret because Marxist movements depend on the support of the people. That is the way they differ from movements of the political right. So the question is, do you see people in your state and community working with and joining an organization that calls itself "Marxist" or "communist" or "socialist"? No. Such organizations are few and small, and people aren't bothering with them.

Secondly, the question is not whether we see the abolition of land ownership happening, which we don't, or whether we see a heavy progressive income tax, which we don't as the top bracket has consistently come down since about 1970, or whether we see abolition of rights of inheritance, confiscation of immigrants' possessions, centralization of credit and communications in the hands of the state, or any of your other "points". The question is whether we see some monolithic national organization advocating a people's revolution. We don't.

In fact, your post is so absurd that I recognize that it could be facetiousness, sarcasm, or an intended joke.

Do your homework.

List of Democratic Socialists of America members who have held office in the United States​

Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that supports political democracy and some form of a socially owned economy,[1] with a particular emphasis on economic democracy, workplace democracy, and workers' self-management[2] within a market socialist economy, or an alternative form of decentralised planned socialist economy.[3] Democratic socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the values of freedom, equality, and solidarity and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realisation of a socialist society.[4] Although most democratic socialists seek a gradual transition to socialism,[5] democratic socialism can support either revolutionary or reformist politics as means to establish socialism.[6] Democratic socialism was popularized by socialists who were opposed to the backsliding towards a one-party state in the Soviet Union and other nations during the 20th century.[7]

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of Democratic Socialists of America members who have held office in the United States​

List of Democratic Socialists of America public officeholders - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[dblack]

BECAUSE IT'S NOT!

Yikes!

Well, obviously, opinions on the matter differ. But you still didn't really answer, did you? Why is it so important? What's the big deal if some of us are concerned about socialism? If it's all bs, then we're just worrying for nothing, right? How is that any skin off your nose?

If you believe that, why can't you prove even one of your 10 items from the C.M. is being implemented?

There's nothing to prove outside of reading them. It seems you're being deliberately obtuse. Some of these are a given - are you really denying public education and graduated income tax??

 

[Batcat]

There isn't even one mention of "workers" in your link, yet you think it tells how socialism would operate. You don't even know that Lenin said socialism was a bridge too far and that Russia would do better with state capitalism for a time, and then another revolution later to transition from state capitalism to socialism. IOW you whole post is bullshit after bullshit.

Are you aware of the “Red Terror” and Lenin’s part in it. I would never want to put my nation through anything like that but fortunately that will never happen as long as we have the right to bear arms.

Vladimir Lenin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

***snip***

In September 1918, Sovnarkom passed a decree that inaugurated the Red Terror, a system of repression orchestrated by the Cheka.[260] Although sometimes described as an attempt to eliminate the entire bourgeoisie,[261] Lenin did not want to exterminate all members of this class, merely those who sought to reinstate their rule.[262] The majority of the Terror's victims were well-to-do citizens or former members of the Tsarist administration;[263] others were non-bourgeois anti-Bolsheviks and perceived social undesirables such as prostitutes.[264] The Cheka claimed the right to both sentence and execute anyone whom it deemed to be an enemy of the government, without recourse to the Revolutionary Tribunals.[265] Accordingly, throughout Soviet Russia the Cheka carried out killings, often in large numbers.[266] For example, the Petrograd Cheka executed 512 people in a few days.[267]There are no surviving records to provide an accurate figure of how many perished in the Red Terror;[268] later estimates of historians have ranged between 10,000 and 15,000,[269] and 15,000,[269] and 50,000 to 140,000.[270][/b]…emphasis added.

What Was the Red Terror?

The Red Terror was a program of mass repression, class extermination and execution carried out by the Bolshevik government in the Russian Civil War.

www.thoughtco.com

***snip***

The Red Terror and Lenin​

During the civil war, Lenin's central government enacted what they called the Red Terror. The aims of the were twofold: because Lenin’s dictatorship seemed in danger of failing, the Terror allowed them to control the state and reforge it through terror. They also aimed to remove whole classes of state ‘enemies’, to wage a war by the workers against bourgeois Russia. To this end, a massive police state was created, which operated outside the law and which could arrest seemingly anyone, at any time, who was judged a class enemy. Looking suspicious, being in the wrong time at the wrong place, and being denounced by jealous rivals could all lead to imprisonment. Hundreds of thousands were locked up, tortured and executed. Perhaps 500,000 died. Lenin kept himself apart from the daily activity like signing death warrants, but he was the driving force that pushed everything up the gears. He was also the man who canceled a Bolshevik vote banning the death penalty.

Channeling the Anger of the Russian Peasants​

The Terror wasn’t purely a creation of Lenin's, as it grew out of the hate-filled attacks which vast quantities of the Russian peasants directed against the perceived better off in 1917 and 18. However, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were happy to channel it. It was given a great deal of state support in 1918 after Lenin was nearly assassinated, but Lenin didn’t redouble it simply out of fear from his life, but because it had been in the fabric of the Bolshevik regime (and their motivations) since before the revolution. Lenin's guilt is clear if once denied. The intrinsic nature of repression in his extreme version of socialism clear. …emphasis added

 

[scruffy]

Hey stupid FuckBoi. You're still railing about "commies". Bleating like a sheep everything you've been told by the right without a thought in your head.

Refer to post #311, dumbass fucktard.

Then go fuck yourself.

 

[scruffy]

I see plenty of people on forums declaring they're socialists and who turn out to know nothing about it including what it is by definition. Patrisse Cullors said she is a "trained Marxist". And you're so gullible and ignorant of Marxism that you don't seem to know there is no place to get "training" as a Marxist!!!! Ya DOPE! So guess what that means. It means no one is a "trained Marxist" and Cullors was just trying to be an irritation to you, and it worked!

Now, I'll give you one more chance. Call me a foul thing again and you won't be communicating with me again.

Hey - fuck you.

Put me on ignore, you dumb fucking asshole.

That would be TYPICAL of people like you. Denying what's right in front of you. OSTRICH MUCH? ???

Hey dumbshit, you can walk on to ANY COLLEGE CAMPUS IN THE UNITED STATES and get training as a Marxist, you dumbass ignorant fucktard.

Now put me on ignore. I have nothing to learn from you.

 

[Senter]

Do your homework.

List of Democratic Socialists of America members who have held office in the United States​

Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that supports political democracy and some form of a socially owned economy,[1] with a particular emphasis on economic democracy, workplace democracy, and workers' self-management[2] within a market socialist economy, or an alternative form of decentralised planned socialist economy.[3] Democratic socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the values of freedom, equality, and solidarity and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realisation of a socialist society.[4] Although most democratic socialists seek a gradual transition to socialism,[5] democratic socialism can support either revolutionary or reformist politics as means to establish socialism.[6] Democratic socialism was popularized by socialists who were opposed to the backsliding towards a one-party state in the Soviet Union and other nations during the 20th century.[7]

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of Democratic Socialists of America members who have held office in the United States​

List of Democratic Socialists of America public officeholders - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do YOUR homework! "Democratic socialism" is capitalism "softened" with socially-beneficial policies and programs. Look into it and learn something.

 

[Senter]

Yikes!

Well, obviously, opinions on the matter differ. But you still didn't really answer, did you? Why is it so important? What's the big deal if some of us are concerned about socialism? If it's all bs, then we're just worrying for nothing, right? How is that any skin off your nose?

But WHAT is "BS"? It is your assessment that is BS. You like to twist things. YOUR ASSESSMENT IS BS. YOU DON'T KNOW WTF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN YO TALK ABOUT SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM. YOU'RE IN RW FANTASY LAND!

There, is that clear enough?

There's nothing to prove outside of reading them. It seems you're being deliberately obtuse. Some of these are a given - are you really denying public education and graduated income tax??

So IOW you have nothing. You know of nothing relating to those ten points. You're just spewing more BS. So you dodge and avoid debate and discussion. You just want to throw out BS and not have it questioned.

Got it.